Army shakeups clear path for Rumsfeld's vision

Stars and Stripes ^ | European edition, Sunday, April 27, 2003 | By Joseph L. Galloway, Knight Ridder

[billorites]

"Rumsfeld plans to offer the Army chief of staff job to Gen. Tommy Franks"

If the General's busy, his wife can chair the meetings.

[MEG33]

Seems we know where the armchairs got their info before and a during the first 2 weeks of the war.Rumsfield has no Army friends it would seem. He stepped all over too many toes.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

He has one, Tommy Franks, and one is more than enough. Those doggies who were feeding the armchairs with their "gouge" were full of s*** and are now eating a healthy dose of crow alongside Garofalo et al.

[demlosers]

that Rumsfeld, once he has appointed his own selections to Army leadership posts, will renew his attempt to take the Army down by two or possibly even four divisions, along with similar cuts in the Army National Guard.

I can't agree with Rumsfeld here, if he wants to do this. If we ever get into a hard fight, we're gonna need those heavy divisions. We are not at that point yet were we can discard our Main Battle Tanks -- are technology is not as yet, a Star Trek advantage.

[dts32041]

You still need heavies, but we aren't playing in the central plains of Europe.

The think about the crusdar where the sam hill do cross a bridge with a 90 ton beast and 110 ammo carrier.

[Travis McGee]

Ping.

[verity]

It's Rumsfeld's way or the highway, but what if he is wrong?"

What if he is right?

[MEG33]

The latest is "What will we do when we face a real army?" I believe it is important to have many voices,but there was an internal revolt going on at the Pentagon. It didn't look good for the war effort.White seemed to be a good man for the wrong time and circumstance.

[LS]

There is no shortage of tanks. Rummy is NOT talking about eliminating tanks but in making sure that those we have (see: Turkey) can get to the battlefield ON TIME via airlift and sealift.

In fact, it might be worthwhile for someone to check Janes (I don't have a copy) on the military capacities of Russia today vs. Iraq in 1991. I bet there isn't too much difference in armor capability, especially if one compares, say, "west front" Russian capability to Iraq total.

[demlosers]

Around 9000 M-1 Abrahms.

[denydenydeny]

The article puts a whole lot of words in Rumsfeld's mouth without ever quoting him even once. I am, shall we say, suspcious.

[J. L. Chamberlain]

If the General's busy, his wife can chair the meetings.

Ouch! Whatever became of that investigation?

J

[truth_seeker]

"We are not at that point yet were we can discard our Main Battle Tanks -- are technology is not as yet, a Star Trek advantage."

Why? Rumsfeld seems to think so. He has been Sec. of Defense twice, spanning over 28 years.

With air power worldwide from land and carriers, we can do the work of artillery and tanks that way.

A Stryker can be loaded into a C-130, with troops and ammo. Puts boots on the ground in a hurry, to take and hold territory.

New military. Very fast. Very light. Very high tech. Very smart. Very deadly.

Training a Garf, for tank and artillery battles on the plains of Europe has been the olde Army model for 50 years.

The new Army is, well, the New Army.

[Walkingfeather]

I must disagree with you here. I would like you to name one country that can deploy and fight and capture like we have the ability to. I do not think it is out there. China has numbers but not the logistical support to make them useful. Same with N.Korea etc. Look on the Horizon is there anything there that looks like a threat? Armies and the buerocracy that support them are like the giant oil tankers that take 10 miles to make a turn. Change is that way in such systems. rumsfeld knows that this has to be a systemic change to be effective. It is much easier to move up in numbers than to drop down into highly effective fighting moduals. I think what he is doing is wise.

[Walkingfeather]

The answer to that question is your artillery is not behind you it is ahead of you and above you 24/7. Please check out the video demonstrations on Metalstorm.com . Look at the area denial and the air support demos.... you will get a sense of how we will be fighting in the next 30 years.

[LS]

The answer to your question is that Paladin can keep up EVERY BIT as well with our tanks as Crusader---if not better. The ammo dump that Crusader had to pull made it slower and less deployable.

Again, stop with this raising straw men. Read my first sentence. No one is doing away with tanks. There is tremendous sense, though, in reducing the number of tanks in the OVERALL force mix, especially if scarce resources mean that we get more TRANSPORTS for the tanks we have.

The 4th ID is the best proof yet of what I am suggesting. We didn't even need its most advanced tanks---and they never got into battle, because of air/sea-lift problems via Turkey.

BTW, the Brits have developed (you'll hate this) a plastic tank that can sustain heavy mm. direct gun hits at range. It is something like 1/3 the weight of an Abrams. Now, there is a gun issu---it needs a heavier gun---but still the potential for the armor is enormous.

[LS]

Clearly, this isn't a shortage. How many top-quality tanks do the Chinese or Russkies have?

[GOP_1900AD]

While Rummy is heads up above the previous Clintonista buffoons, he is much affected by the scarcity mentality. Not unlike the military leadership of the UK 1919 - 1939, he is crafting his strategy based on continuation of post late 1980s draw down force levels and mostly light and flexible hardware, with no intention of rearmament per se. This is a "maintenance" strategy that bets against war between great powers. History will show that this is a very risky gamble.